Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4516553 — Rent arrears at 19A Otanarua Road, Hatfields Beach, Auckland 0931
Decided 28 Feb 2024 · Published 28 Feb 2024 · Application 4516553
- Rent arrears
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6413549-008) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. There were two hearings, the first being on 6 September 2023 and the second on 28 February 2024. The first hearing was adjourned as both parties needed to obtain and submit evidence to support their claims.
- The order dated 6 September 2023 records that the landlord claims in respect of utility costs, rent arrears and lawns. The tenant claims in respect of utilities that he has incorrectly paid for, a breach of quiet enjoyment and refund of the bond.
- At the second hearing the landlord withdrew the claims in respect of utilities and lawns. The landlord’s remaining claim was in respect of rent arrears.
- The landlord produced a rent summary. The hearing was adjourned to provide the tenant with an opportunity to check the summary against his records. The tenant advised that there was a payment of $540.00 made on 2 January 2023 which was missed from the summary. The landlord agreed to include that payment. After taking account of that payment the rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy amounts to $2160.00.
- The tenant claimed that Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) may have paid more money on his behalf, but no evidence was produced to support this. Therefore, I am unable to take account of this claim.
- The tenant claims that he incorrectly paid for utilities being power, water and internet.
- The arrangement between the parties was that one of them would be on the account for power and the other would pay their share directly to the provider. The tenant says that the landlord cut off his power three months before the end of the tenancy which meant that the tenant needed to open his own account. He said that he paid for the landlord’s power for the last three months.
- The landlord disputes this and says that he never turned the power off and instead due to the tenant not paying for his power the account was put into the tenant’s name.
- I am not convinced by the landlord’s oral evidence or the suggestion that he could open a power account in the tenant’s name. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s claim that the power was disconnected or that he paid for the landlord’s power.
- In respect of water the tenant says that he paid for the water to the entire property, including the premises where the landlord lived. The landlord says that he does not use the water supplied by Watercare and instead his property has a water tank, which he says he has never needed to fill.
- The tenant produced photographs of water pipes running along the boundary of the section. The tenant says the pipes connect to the Watercare line whereas the landlord says that the pipes were connected to his water tank from the time before the front house was built.
- I am not convinced with the evidence from either party. The tenant has not satisfied me that he has paid more water than he should pay.
- In respect of the internet, the parties agreed that the tenant could use the landlord’s internet on the basis that he paid half the cost. The tenant says that the landlord disconnected the internet to punish him. The landlord said that there was a fault with the cable and as he did not use the internet, he decided not to get it repaired. Again, I am not satisfied with the evidence of either party. However, to be successful with his claim the onus is on the tenant to prove his case and he has not done so.
- The tenant’s claim that he paid utilities that he should not have is not supported by evidence and is dismissed.
- The tenant claims that he was forced to pay to have the lawn on the berm mowed. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the gardens. The tenant says that this does not include the lawn. The tenant says that he mowed the lawns from three weeks after moving in. That would be around January 2022. If he continued to mow the lawn that would have been over a two-year period.
- I am not satisfied that the tenant was forced to pay to mow the lawn. It is something that he did for a lengthy period. There was no evidence that this was an issue between the parties. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
- The tenant claims exemplary damages in relation to a breach of his quiet enjoyment. The tenant refers to the landlord running a business from his property which is located down the shared driveway. It is a massage business. The tenant says the business ran seven days a week. The landlord denied this.
- While I accept that activities associated with the business may have been annoying for the tenant, I am not satisfied that this would justify an award of exemplary damages. The tenant also referred to people, who he thinks may have been clients of the business, knocking on his door. While this would have been inconvenient it is not necessarily anything that the landlord would have control over.
- The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
- As neither party has been substantially successful with their claim I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.